Arkadin

I was thinking about it. It would be interesting to compare with Dryers film.

1943? Although the Germans were losing the war and retreating I don't think the Russians had pushed that far yet. Are you maybe talking about the 1944 uprising? I've been wrong before though.

There is certainly nothing wrong with feeling the way you do. We are all different individuals here and if we all liked or shared the same things with each other where would we ever hear about new things (or old films which are new to us)? All of us enjoy different things and it's the differences that actually create interest on this board. There are so many great films that TCM has shown that I would never have watched if it had not been for viewers here telling me about them. Hopefully, we all inspire each other to take a different tack now and then and explore something new to us.

Indeed. I am 1/4 Polish and what the Germans did to the Poles--Jews and non Jews was reprehensible. Most people don't even know about the Warsaw ghetto uprising where Polish Jews knew they were being deported to be exterminated and fought the Germans with everything they had before being massacred. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising One of the 2 survivors who escaped through the sewers told an interviewer: "If you could lick my heart, it would poison you".

Well, I would say most people feel the same way, but have not done as much in depth study. Lots of people don't understand how Hitler ever came to power or what would make people devote themselves and their very lives to his cause. Learning about histories tragedies can help us prevent new ones. As far as the films themselves, they are inventive and broke all kinds of new ground in filmaking (as did Birth of a Nation) despite their subject matter. I feel all these films have a lot to tell us especially in the world we are living in today. Night and Fog (1955) would be another film I would also reccomend that anyone who wants to learn about WW2 should see.

Just kidding.

You can just make me a Napoleon DVD!

I don't know, but when I read his autobigraphy that was the reason he gave. It's also the sad case that although some people will watch subtitles or dubs others just can't get used to it. I feel sorry for them because they are missing out on so many great films, but I guess we should save that discussion for the FF section.

Here is the copy I own: http://www.amazon.com/Way-Down-East-Lillian-Gish/dp/6305131139/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5947792-0559919?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1174254547&sr=1-1 It's a pretty good print. There are signs of age in a few places though. A great film.

There are so many, but perhaps my favorite is Lillan Gish in "Way down East" (1920) when she is on the cakes of ice on the frozen river and the hero is jumping from one cake to another to rescue her before she goes over the waterfall.

I am a huge fan of the book. I have not watched this adaptation in a long time. I have seen many of them and they all fall short, but I agree this one is probably the best.

Oxbow is a GREAT choice. It also has interesting social concerns and could be discussed.

> People DID enjoy Chaplin all over the world. A film > book I read called him cinema's first international > superstar. Not exactly what you would call light > praise. Very true. This was also one of the reasons Chaplin resisted talking films. It would reduce his audience (and profits) by roughly 1/6th.

That's a great point.

Well, so far it's (the book) pretty good. Yes, I saw that he had done one about "Eve" as well. How was that one?

It's funny this thread came up because I have been reading a book on the making of SB on my lunch hour: http://www.amazon.com/Close-up-Sunset-Boulevard-Desmond-Hollywood/dp/0312302541/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/104-5947792-0559919?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174148978&sr=1-3 It goes into most of the details and expenditures. I am only about 1/4 of the way through it. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the film so far is that they deliberately kept the film vague to the suits & ties. They had won an Oscar for Lost Weekend and had some measure of trust from the studio. The actors weren't really aware what they were signing on to because the script was very bare bones and did not really have much of the venom and fire that would have no doubt sent Hollywood execs running for the scissors.

Well, Kirk is still alive...

Yes.

That's the only reason I'm still up!!

I will definitely be grabbing that when it comes out.

Hey, that's the reason I think people should see it. It's all good...

I would concur with that Dewey. I do think that people should view it for historical reasons, but for me personally it never held the weight of his other films.

While I personally don't care for "bad language", I do accept the fact that it must be used in books, films and theatre from the standpoint of realism. I don't care for needless cursing though.

Actually, I think both of you are right. DD's character in this film is one who had a great career and obviously misses it, but she also asks her husband when they are going to have another child. Although I much prefer the 34 version, Day's work here is one of her best roles. Hitch gave her a multidemensional character to work with and she did an impressive job in filling and inhabiting that character. Her breakdown when she is finally told about Hank's abduction is one of the best portrayals of a distraught mother I have seen and she clearly outshone Edna Best in that regard.

My favorite would probably be "The Major and Minor". He was also great in "Ministry of Fear" (1944), and played a great heavy in "Dial M for Murder" (1953).